The Urban Grind

Not surprisingly, the trendiest Manhattan neighborhoods are where most of the STD’s are found, along with the South Bronx and Harlem.

Now I could go on and on with stories about my dating experiences with men who just wanted to get right down to business while I was living in Manhattan. One man I met on a Jewish dating site said right to my face that I needed a few nights of sex with a nerdy guy to “loosen me up.”

Anyway, with statistics like this, I’d rather be “uptight.”

Nightlife areas such as SoHo, Murray Hill and the Upper West Side are home to 10 times more syphilis-infected residents than the city’s average, according to the city Department of Health.

Roughly 125 people — taken from a sample of 100,000 — tested positive for the disease in those three neighborhoods.

But it’s not just the posh ZIP codes that make playing the field sound like playing with fire.

The Tremont section of The Bronx — where 43 percent of residents are below the federal poverty line — is home to the city’s highest STD rate, the study found.

In the report, which uses data from 2010, researchers also pinpoint areas with the highest rates of hepatitis B and C, chlamydia, gonorrhea and HIV.

The findings reveal:

* The Bronx is the borough where you’d least like to have a one-night stand. Roughly 68 percent of neighborhoods in the borough were found to have “high” rates of more than one STD.

* Staten Island is the healthiest place to hook up. Not a single neighborhood in the borough made the agency’s top-20 list for STDs.

* Thirteen out of 20 of the neighborhoods with the highest HIV and syphilis rates are in Manhattan.

* HIV and hepatitis C ran most rampant in gentrifying Bedford-Stuyvesant, Crown Heights, Williamsburg and Harlem.

* Neighborhoods with the highest rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea include the South Bronx, central Brooklyn and northern Manhattan.

* Health officials note TB and hepatitis B are most prevalent in the city’s immigrant communities. More than half of Queens’ worst-ranked neighborhoods are home to predominantly foreign-born residents.

Areas with the highest hepatitis rates — including Chelsea and Morningside Heights — rank 10 times the city’s average.

What lovely people these Occupy protests attract (snort!).

The wannabe bomber is one Nkrumah Tinsley. Here’s what he had to say.

“In a few days they’re going to see what a Molotov cocktail can do to Macy’s,” Tinsley also allegedly vowed, according to a video posted on YouTube.
“They got guns! We got bottles!”

Tinsley was arrested around 5 p.m. at Zuccotti Park.

As he was hauled away, Tinsley repeatedly shouted profanities, including “F–k you guys!” at least 10 times.
About 10 of his fellow demonstrators followed him and started jeering at the officers.

“You do not serve and protect us anymore,” said Kanaska Carter,26. “They’re slowing trying to deteriorate the movement, but it’s not going to happen,” she said referring to the NYPD.

{snip}

Tinsley was charged with making a terroristic threat. Cops tonight were executing a search warrant at a Bronx home on University Avenue.

It’s not his first run-in with cops since the OWS protests began.

He was arrested on Oct. 26 for allegedly punching a cop who was trying to issue him a summons for disorderly conduct during a protest.
He was charged with assault.

In a time where reality shows are considered entertainment, I guess it would only follow for self absorbed people to take things to the next level, such as a woman who gave birth to a baby at a Brooklyn art gallery.

Personally, I think reality shows are for idiots. Why should I, or anyone else with half a brain, care about a typical day in the life of a former Playboy centerfold, or a group of no talent, slutty sisters, each wearing ten pounds of makeup, whose late father defended OJ Simpson? But I guess it should be obvious by now that many people have a voyeuristic streak, which is why reality shows are so popular. I guess that also explains why someone would go to see this woman giving birth in an art gallery.

Now on another note, why is it that some of these pregnant women become total exhibitionists? Granted, children are usually a blessing. But how does this woman translate that into thinking that strangers will want to come see her swollen naked body, and her stretched out labia? (For that matter, I don’t understand pregnant women having their husbands join them in the delivery room either.)

Anyway, here’s what Marni Kotak had to say:

Marni Kotak, 36, planned the very public end to her pregnancy at Microscope Gallery in Bushwick on Tuesday, witnessed by about 20 spectators, as a bit of performance art.

“The overall message that we will communicate to the child,” she told the Associated Press, “is that he or she was born in an art gallery because, as artists, that is our sacred space, and in doing this we are telling the world and our child that his or her life is a precious work of art.”

It’s the latest in a strange string of stunts by Kotak, including re-enactments of her own birth, her grandfather’s funeral and losing her virginity in the back of a blue Plymouth.

{snip}

As part of the performance artwork, entitled “The Birth of Baby X,” Kotak videotaped the event-a film that will later be added to gallery’s upcoming exhibition.

“It’s a healthy baby boy!” read a message posted on the gallery’s website last night under the title heading, “BABY X HAS ARRIVED.”

The concept piece began Oct. 8, with Kotak hanging out at the gallery, talking up visitors about motherhood and art, among other things.

Those who left their contact information behind with her were then notified when she went into labor so they could attend the birth.

The “artwork” included the transformation of much of the gallery into a de factor delivery ward, complete with soothing, ocean blue-colored walls and photo-imprinted pillows.

Across the pond in Britain, a young diabetic woman named Heidi Withers got engaged to a Freddy Bourne, and then went to meet her future in-laws. Unfortunately, Withers and her future mother in law got off on the wrong foot, so much so that Mrs. Bourne sent the young woman a scathing email, outlining her rudeness, three times. Here’s the full text of the email:

Via The Blaze

It is high time someone explained to you about good manners. Yours are obvious by their absence and I feel sorry for you.

Unfortunately for Freddie, he has fallen in love with you and Freddie being Freddie, I gather it is not easy to reason with him or yet encourage him to consider how he might be able to help you.

It may just be possible to get through to you though. I do hope so.

Your behaviour on your visit to Devon during April was staggering in its uncouthness and lack of grace.

Unfortunately, this was not the first example of bad manners I have experienced from you.

If you want to be accepted by the wider Bourne family I suggest you take some guidance from experts with utmost haste.

There are plenty of finishing schools around. You would be an ideal candidate for the Ladette to Lady television series.

Please, for your own good, for Freddie’s sake and for your future involvement with the Bourne family, do something as soon as possible.

Here are a few examples of your lack of manners:

When you are a guest in another’s house, you do not declare what you will and will not eat – unless you are positively allergic to something.

You do not remark that you do not have enough food.

You do not start before everyone else.

You do not take additional helpings without being invited to by your host.

When a guest in another’s house, you do not lie in bed until late morning in households that rise early – you fall in line with house norms.

You should never ever insult the family you are about to join at any time and most definitely not in public. I gather you passed this off as a joke but the reaction in the pub was one of shock, not laughter.

I have no idea whether you wrote to thank [your future sister-in-law] for the weekend but you should have hand-written a card to her.

You should have hand-written a card to me. You have never written to thank me when you have stayed at Houndspool.

[Your future sister-in-law] has quite the most exquisite manners of anyone I have ever come across. You would do well to follow her example.

You regularly draw attention to yourself. Perhaps you should ask yourself why.

It is tragic that you have diabetes. However, you aren’t the only young person in the world who is a diabetic.

I know quite a few young people who have this condition, one of whom is getting married in June. I have never heard her discuss her condition.

She quietly gets on with it. She doesn’t like being diabetic. Who would? You do not need to regale everyone with the details of your condition or use it as an excuse to draw attention to yourself. It is vulgar.

As a diabetic of long standing you must be acutely aware of the need to prepare yourself for extraordinary eventualities, the walk to Mothecombe beach being an example.

You are experienced enough to have prepared yourself appropriately.

No-one gets married in a castle unless they own it. It is brash, celebrity style behaviour.

I understand your parents are unable to contribute very much towards the cost of your wedding. (There is nothing wrong with that except that convention is such that one might presume they would have saved over the years for their daughters’ marriages.)

If this is the case, it would be most ladylike and gracious to lower your sights and have a modest wedding as befits both your incomes.

One could be accused of thinking that Heidi Withers must be patting herself on the back for having caught a most eligible young man. I pity Freddie.

Withers forwarded this email to her friends, one of whom posted this on the internet, which is how this email went viral.

What do you guys think? Do you agree with the future mother in law? Or do you think she was out of line? As I see it, Mrs. Bourne may have had some valid points. But she could have said something nicely to her stepson in private. After all this is a young woman who (presumably) loves her stepson, and who will be the mother of Carolyn Bourne’s future grandchildren. So even if Bourne has some issues with the girl, I think it’s always best to be diplomatic.

Personally, I find this immodest and disrespectful. There’s a time and place for everything. But to each his own, I guess.

Just to refresh your memory, Sean Bell was a young man who was shot dead by the New York City police after he tried shooting at them outside a strip club on the day of his wedding. I had written about the case here, here, here, and here.

The City Council is set to vote on a street renaming bill Monday.

The legislation would rename three blocks after Sean Bell. He was killed outside a strip club in 2006 while leaving his bachelor party on what would have been his wedding day. A judge acquitted three police officers in 2008.

{snip}

The head of the police detectives union called the street-naming proposal disgraceful. In a separate letter to each City Council member, Michael Palladino wrote that Bell, while intoxicated, “used his car as a deadly weapon and rammed the police performing their lawful duty. His failed attempt to kill them resulted in his own death. That behavior does not warrant glorification.”

Looks like New York City is going the way of France when they named one of their city streets after that disgusting cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal.

In Manhattan’s Standard Hotel, located in the chic chic meat packing district, you can be treated to naked and semi-naked staff members, who even pose by the hotel’s floor to ceiling windows.

The city’s many trendy gay/actor/singer/dancer/model types should love this one.

If you’ve got it, flaunt it!

That’s the rule — not the exception — at the exhibitionist-friendly Standard Hotel in the Meatpacking District, employees told The Post.

Even hotel staffers and managers get in on the act, workers said, stripping down and posing provocatively in front of the massive floor-to-ceiling windows to draw attention to the hotel, which straddles the city’s new High Line Park.

“We don’t discourage it. In actual fact, we encourage it,” a friendly bellhop told a pair of reporters as they checked in yesterday at The Standard, where randy guests cavort with abandon to the dismay — or delight — of parkgoers below.

After the hotel opened late last year, the bellhop said, naked and semidressed staff members were encouraged to pose in front of the windows. The point, he said, was to create a buzz with the unexpected peep show.

It just reminds me of the following scene in Bob Fosse’s autobiographical movie “All That Jazz.”

Ashley Dupre insists she’s not a prostitue.

NEW YORK — The escort at the center of the scandal that brought down former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer said she didn’t realize who he was until the scandal broke.

In an interview with Diane Sawyer, Ashley Dupre insists on ABC News’ “20/20″ that she’s not a prostitute, saying that being an escort involves much more than just sex.

She had earlier told People magazine she felt connected to Spitzer’s wife, but not to the former governor. She said she saw the pain in Spitzer’s wife’s eyes when the situation became public.

She said she’s apologized to Spitzer’s wife.

Shit is shit, no matter how you slice it, peel it, or dress it up.

A while back, I posted about the horrific murder of a little girl named Nixzmary Brown by her stepfather, while her so-called mother stood by and did nothing.

Anyway, the slut has been sentenced to 40 1/3 to 43 years in prison. And of course the assorted moonbats are upset that a “mother” received a harsher sentence than her latest sperm donor.

The prosecutor, Ama Dwimoh, said Ms. Santiago was the “one person” who the little girl should have been able to count on. “She called her ‘Mommy,’ ” Ms. Dwimoh told the judge. The word weighed heavily on a trial already filled with horrific details of abuse.

Well of course! After all, it’s the mother that carries the child in her body for nine months, and who then nurses it.

{snip}

One of Ms. Santiago’s lawyers, Kathleen M. Mullin, called the sentence “fundamentally unfair” and said she had expected at most a sentence of 32 years — maximum terms for the manslaughter charge and one of the assault charges, with the sentence for the other assault to run concurrently. (Mr. Rodriguez was not charged with assault.)

Ms. Mullin said that as the mother of the victim, Ms. Santiago was subjected to added scrutiny. “It’s part of the reason this is so upsetting,” Ms. Mullin said. “We subscribe to these biblical ideas of instinctual mothering.”

I hate to break it to this woman, but our society is based on Judeo-Christian values, that gasp, come from the Bible. So if a woman is going to have kids, then she’d darn well better keep them out of harm’s way. And considering that the promiscuous bitch in heat Nixaliz Santiago refused to do even that, she could have at least gotten her tubes tied, or gotten Norplant injections.

“There’s a sacredness about the role of mother,” he said. “When a woman is not fulfilling her role, it shocks the conscience, more than if she commits a crime. If she was prostituting herself or dealing drugs or stealing to feed, clothe and shelter her children, people would be more sympathetic.”

Damn right, the role of a mother is sacred! She’s responsible to bringing new human being into this world, and raising them to be good civilized adults. These leftists clearly hate the Bible because the good book is against doing whatever feels good at the moment.

Details of Ms. Santiago’s troubled past — her learning disabilities, her abusive relationships and her miscarriage shortly before Nixzmary died — have caused some who followed the trial to wonder about her capacity to help her daughter.

Awilda Cordero, a victims’ rights advocate, said that Ms. Santiago herself had been abused by Mr. Rodriguez and feared him. “She didn’t know how to protect this child,” she added.

Here we go again, with the mother as victim routine. She wouldn’t have been in those “abusive relationhips” if she had kept her legs together.

As for not knowing how to protect her child, spare me! That’s something even animals know how to do. (Notice that I don’t call Santiago an animal, since it would highly insulting to animals.)

Katherine M. Franke, the director of Columbia Law School’s Program in Gender and Sexuality Law, said Ms. Santiago’s sentence reinforced simple notions of parental roles, with men perceived as more violent and women as saddled with “all the obligations and responsibility — and ultimately the punishment — for what happens to their children.”

What’s with these crazy college professors?!? Those “simple notions of parental roles” are what has held our society together over the year. And the fact is, men and women are different. So if this Santiago woman didn’t want to “saddled with all the obligations and responsibility” of motherhood, then she shouldn’t have kept popping out children.

Also, notice how this Columbia woman sees women as being “saddled” with “obligations” and “responsibilities?” No women I know who have children would EVER see themselves as being “saddled.” To them, children are a blessing. And whatever they do for their children is simply a labor of love.

{snip}

But the prosecution argued, and a jury agreed, that Ms. Santiago and Mr. Rodriguez together caused Nixzmary’s death: Mr. Rodriguez did the beating, sometimes with encouragement by Ms. Santiago, or else her acquiescence. Nixzmary was found dead on Jan. 11, 2006, after she was severely beaten by Mr. Rodriguez.

Ms. Santiago did not immediately call an ambulance and instead bathed the girl and put her to bed. A neighbor testified that Ms. Santiago was calm that night, wailing only while the neighbor was on the phone with a 911 operator.

How could any mother just stand by while her baby is being beaten?

Ms. Abdel-Dayem and an alternate juror, Lenore Habersham, said that a videotaped statement Ms. Santiago gave to the police was the most compelling evidence against her.

“She was so nonchalant about her daughter’s death,” Ms. Abdel-Dayem said. “That really got us, that she seemed so uncaring.” The jurors, she said, were torn between manslaughter and murder charges. They finally decided that Ms. Santiago had not directly killed her daughter.

“I was deliberating between ‘Is there intent or not?’ ” Ms. Abdel-Dayem said. “I came to the conclusion that there was intent, in the form of her lack of action.”

I agree. Sleeping around with different men was not something this selfish slut of a mother could deny herself. Clearly her feisty little daughter was “in the way.”

We already know that Obama wants to gut our military and make nice with all the dictators of the world instead. But Obama also has a soft spot for domestic criminals, especially if they’re minorities.

One of the first things Obama would do as president is repeal mandatory minimum sentences for crack and other drug offenders to “reduce the ineffective warehousing” of such criminals, according to his website. He favors “drug rehabilitation” over incarceration for even “a second-time offender,” according to a 2007 interview he gave to the Michigan Chronicle, Detroit’s second-largest African-American newspaper.

Decriminalizing pot is also on the table. “We need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws,” said Obama, who admits to smoking weed and doing “a little blow” as a young man.

As an Illinois state senator, Obama voted to weaken penalties on gangbangers who deal drugs in schools.

He also wants to rehabilitate inmates through prison-to-work programs. Obama’s pet charity, ACORN, has such a program. It hired 59 inmates at its Las Vegas office this year. They proceeded to fraudulently register voters using the names of Dallas Cowboys football stars. A police affidavit quoted a supervisor describing them as “lazy crack-heads” who just wanted money for drugs.

ACORN and Obama have been working to restore voting rights for felons, which would be another priority of his administration. “At a minimum,” Obama told the black Detroit paper, “those who serve their sentences should be re-enfranchised.”

In Illinois, he unsuccessfully sponsored a measure to expunge some criminal records. He thinks they are used as a “stigma” against blacks.

Obama also wants to outlaw police use of racial descriptions as a means to capture suspects, including Middle-Eastern terrorists. As a U.S. senator, he’s already co-sponsored federal legislation to ban “racial profiling.”

At the same time, he wants to limit your right to protect yourself from criminals by permanently banning assault weapons, among other gun-control measures to de-”cling” you from your guns.

As a state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on the sale and transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, along with a bill limiting handgun purchases to one a month. In a 1996 questionnaire supplied by a liberal Chicago nonprofit group, he answered “yes” to supporting legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.”

Obama fought a bill in the Illinois senate that would send youth who commit a second violent felony to prison. He fought to keep even the most violent juvenile offenders out of the adult system.

Instead, “We must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime,” he said at the Denver convention. One ladder he has in mind is funding contractors who train “ex-felons on projects that can benefit the community as a whole: insulating homes and offices to make them energy-efficient, perhaps.”

Terrorists could also catch a break. “I would vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act,” he said in 2003. Now he says he would merely repeal the parts of it that are “just plain wrong,” whatever those are.

Obama, who would as president have the power to pardon criminals, isn’t a big fan of U.S. laws in general, at least not as currently written. He thinks they are racist, along with the courts.

“We have certain sentences that are based less on the kind of crime you commit than on what you look like,” he told Howard University students last year. “It’s time to seek a new dawn of justice.”

“Laws are sometimes malleable,” he wrote two years ago, and he plans to “fix” what he sees as a “broken” criminal justice system. And he favors judges with the “empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American.”

That worries some legal analysts. “If Obama wins,” warns Northwestern University law professor Steven Calabresi, “we could possibly see the abolition of capital punishment and mass freeing of criminal defendants.”

In fact, Obama in the 1996 questionnaire responded “no” to supporting capital punishment. His website now calls for unspecified “reform” of the death penalty, which he contended in his book “does little to deter crime.”

Obama will, however, get tough on “hate crimes.” He plans to pack the criminal section of Justice’s Civil Rights Division with African-American prosecutors, and make “hate crime a priority.”

He will “reinvigorate federal civil-rights enforcement” by prosecuting alleged civil-rights abuses by local officials, such as the Jena, La., district attorney. “As president,” his website says, “Obama will ensure that the section vigorously pursues such cases.”

Now can someone please explain to me how exactly a person “falls into” a life of crime? Is there someone going around threatening to kill the families of all these young men if they don’t rob, rape, maim or kill? Whatever happened to free will, which all human beings possess? How about staying in school, getting a job, working hard, and keeping your pants zipped up?

Why haven’t McCain and Palin gone after Obama on this?